Hi Sander, On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 10:27:06AM +0300, Sander Steffann wrote:
The policy (RIPE-452) says: "Notice that the LIR is responsible for liaising with the resource holder to keep registration records up-to-date". So the LIR does have a responsibility.
I know, what I meant was "responsibility to police behaviour of the resource holder" Sorry for not being clearer.
chair declares consensus when the working group is not unanimously supporting a policy proposal then that basis for that decision is carefully evaluated. And there is always the option to appeal a decision made by a working group chair. The chairs are volunteers working for their working group community after all.
Sure, but this proposal fundamentally changes the relationship between a sponsoring LIR and a resource holder in the guise of "just adding another field to the inet[6]num object". I feel that such change deserves a better argumentation and defence than just some hand-wavy "oh, BUT MORE TRANSPARENCY!!1!" ideological rhetoric. I find it interesting how, with some proposals, every hair is split three ways, every minor wording change endlessly debated and with others any objection is swept off the table because "doesn't matter, it's more transparent". A couple things that would make the PDP more palatable: - would it be too much of an extra burden on the WG-chairs to summarise, briefly, how they arrived at the decision that consensus has been achieved/not achieved? (much like a judge would substantiate how they arrived at a given verdict but maybe not quite so verbose) - stop the +1 BS. Every voice in support *or* against a proposal to, at least, give a brief reasoning why. I consider it disrespectful if one spends much time composing and arguing an objection if it can be overridden by "+1". It's changing the way Internet resources are being managed, not godsdamn Facebook. rgds, Sascha Luck